Literal for profit cameras?

[Zedder]

+1

I'd suggest that John Stuart Mill would have said much the same...

He probably said many such things while at the same time still involved with the British East India Company as it plundered India and South East Asia. His support of despotism as a legitimate mode of government is well known.

[Akzle]

Yes the technology has improved, so why do so many major roads have the seal peeling off?

jews .

[Moi]

He probably said many such things while at the same time still involved with the British East India Company as it plundered India and South East Asia. His support of despotism as a legitimate mode of government is well known.

True, but he saw it as "benevolent despotism"...

and he was not an advocate of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company... [put it round the wrong before - mustn't rely on memory originally: and he also had a "road to Damascus" experience when he saw the benefit of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company...]

[Zedder]

True, and he also had a "road to Damascus" experience when he saw the benefit of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company...

If so, it only took him 35 years of working for the company to figure that out...

[Zedder]

True, but he saw it as "benevolent despotism"...

and he was not an advocate of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company... [put it round the wrong before - mustn't rely on memory originally: and he also had a "road to Damascus" experience when he saw the benefit of India being governed by Britain rather than a private company...]

So, it looks like he would be the type of person to support speed cameras being privatised then...

[Moi]

So, it looks like he would be the type of person to support speed cameras being privatised then...

Not necessarily...

If I remember correctly, he opposed government that ruled with no concern for the people and promoted government that ruled while taking into account the people's wishes and which did no harm to either party and that either party had responsibility to ensure their actions were of benefit to society and did no harm to others...

I'd suggest, in this case, he'd see the government as having speed cameras as a way of protecting the many from the actions of a few whose actions could bring harm to the many and that the government is responsible for ensuring that those cameras are operated in a manner which brings no harm to the many and so the government is responsible for the entire operation of those cameras...

[swbarnett]

speed cameras as a way of protecting the many from the actions of a few whose actions could bring harm to the many

The problem is that speed cameras do nothing of the sort. It appears to me that the vast majority of speed related tickets are given under circumstances whereby the speed at which the driver was travelling is doing no harm to anyone.

[FJRider]

Do you consider it possible to meet all the requirements of a Contact and still do a Shit job?

They wont be asked to tar seal a road ... so we're safe there ..

But are you actually aware HOW the information from camera vans process the information gathered during their time "Parked" ... is then converted to due process of law with infringement notices issued ... you can not have an intelligent argument on (possibility of) falsification of work hours or any other required data.

I agree that it will be clearly stipulated, however without full, open access to ALL of the private companies data by the NZTA, there remains the possibility of things being fudged.

I'm thinking along the lines of the VW emissions saga.

1. The contractor will be using LTSA supplied and certified equipment.

2. The contractor will be trained to a certified level to meet a standard that would meet court criteria.

3. The information gathered by the certified "Camera" machine is sealed and (usually) downloaded into LTSA computers at the end of their work day. NO direct interference/alteration to that information (or machine programing) is possible.

5. VW supplied information on their own systems ... using their own programs. Programs designed to withhold relevant information ... giving a false result to data gathered.

4. The contracting out of Speed Camera operation in nothing new. They've been doing it since day one of speed camera operations. They were never (seriously) questioned during those times.

One has a direct causal relationship to the other....

NO. It does not. As I have stated ... it is not possible.

Well yes, I just wish we'd stop making it harder for themselves to remove their stupidity from the Gene pool...

You do make it hard for yourself ...

but in seriousness, once the part of the State's ability to enforce something onto a citizen is delegated or contracted out - full control (in terms of the government being mandated by the will of the people) is lost.

Speed camera operators enforce NOTHING. They merely provide the information and proof for the LTSA to enforce legislation. And in the past ... such contractors have done a bloody good job of doing that. You probably got a ticket through a contractors efforts.

I hope you thanked him ...

There are some situations where this may be acceptable - but it requires very careful thought, discussion and debate. This current situation is not one that IMO meets the extremely high burden of necessity to warrant that delegation.

IMO you are talking shit ... and it's starting to smell.

Whilst I laffed at that - no, I didn't vote Labour - hence my point about you not understanding.

Good news is .. I've stopped trying to understand you. Now I'm just poking fun at you whenever I can ... and most has gone over your head.

Are you short or did you duck ...

[FJRider]

do Government contracts work that way? Didn't seem to be that way when Talent2 did the Novapay fuckup? I recall the Govt (ie you and me) paid for the fixes, even though it was T2 who made the cockups

Perhaps ... "SOMEBODY" might have learned from that debacle ... we live in hope.

[Zedder]

I'd suggest, in this case, he'd see the government as having speed cameras as a way of protecting the many from the actions of a few whose actions could bring harm to the many and that the government is responsible for ensuring that those cameras are operated in a manner which brings no harm to the many and so the government is responsible for the entire operation of those cameras...

That would contravene his view on liberty i.e. that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others. Note that it's not about the potential for harming others.

[Moi]

The problem is that speed cameras do nothing of the sort. It appears to me that the vast majority of speed related tickets are given under circumstances whereby the speed at which the driver was travelling is doing no harm to anyone.

Whether speed cameras do reduce harm or whether they are revenue gathering devices is a red herring - the question is whether the government should hand over to private enterprise the gathering of evidence that could be used to apply a penalty against a citizen? IMO, the government shouldn't, it should retain that responsibility.

That would contravene his view on liberty i.e. that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others. Note that it's not about the potential for harming others.

OK, I thought he did speak of potential harm, as in the potential harm to some by the majority... As I'm relying on memory I could be wrong...

But as I said above: I believe that the government, under the concept of social contract, should be totally responsible for gathering evidence through speed cameras.

[FJRider]

The problem is that speed cameras do nothing of the sort. It appears to me that the vast majority of speed related tickets are given under circumstances whereby the speed at which the driver was travelling is doing no harm to anyone.

If I was to break into your house and steal your tv .. that would be ok with you ... because I wasn't doing you any actual harm ... right .. ???

But ... Fines for infringement of Land Transport Legislation ... is not based on the "Harm" one is doing to another. They are there in an attempt to simply reduce the injury and damage should an road accident occur.

However ... as many can afford to pay all their speed camera fines ... and knowing full well ... their license isn't at stake due to excessive demerit points.

Include demerit points with these fines would reduce the amount being collected from speed camera fines.

[FJRider]

That would contravene his view on liberty i.e. that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others. Note that it's not about the potential for harming others.

What about endangering others through your actions on the road ... ???

[FJRider]

the question is whether the government should hand over to private enterprise the gathering of evidence that could be used to apply a penalty against a citizen? IMO, the government shouldn't, it should retain that responsibility.

They have been doing it since almost immediately after the first introduction of speed cameras ... why could/should it now be an issue ...???

[Moi]

They have been doing it since almost immediately after the first introduction of speed cameras ... why could/should it now be an issue ...???

The news report states: speed camera network could soon be privately managed as police look to re-deploy their resources to other areas which implies that at present the speed camera network is manned by people who are paid out of the police budget.